By ABC's Jonathan Green Thursday 14 August 2014
Photo: Tony Abbott is more than a Prime Minister - he is a guardian against our fears; fears promoted by a sympathetic press. (AFP: Robin Van Lonkhuijsen)
We have always been mindful of the shadowing presence of evil: the footstep behind us in the dark, the anxious space beneath our beds ... and in politics this is fair game for manipulation, writes Jonathan Green.
"Every so often Rumsfeld comes out and goes 'I don't know where, and I don't know when, but something awful's going to happen. That's all for today. No further questions.'" - Robin Williams, 2002.
Could be any day now ... the sudden indiscriminate smack of a terrorist attack.
Our best defence is of course our cultured reason. Our tolerance. Our audacious confidence in the fundamental goodness of others. Maybe even our sense of humour.
There's a parallel reality out there to be sure, of darkness, of coldly calculated humiliation, subjugation and pain, and it seems our continuing lot to enjoy the richness of one while being constantly reminded of the threatening possibilities presented by the other.
By instinct we have always been mindful of the shadowing presence of evil: the footstep behind us in the dark, the anxious space beneath our beds ... and in politics, this, like every other human response, is fair game for manipulation.
If the polls are any guide we are entering another high season for heightened anxiety.
It could be something to do with a Government struggling to find its feet with mundane matters like the economy and democratic process, now hitching its hopes to security. A Government given a noticeable fillip when, confronted by fear, sorrow and anger, we turn to it for paternal reassurance.
It seems we are soothed by the glib pseudo-military confidence of Sovereign Borders and Operation Bring Them Home.
It was Team Australia last week, as Bring Them Home segued effortlessly into Hack Their Phones, and the first of what will no doubt be several pleas for the Government's right to inquire into the electronic detail of all our lives. It's an old and frustrated demand of various intelligence agencies, a demand now being pursued under the opportunistic cover of our collective anxiety, a process conducted with the full furrow-browed pantomime of national security.
The pretext: that 150 Australians are fighting overseas with the forces of bloody-minded medievalism. And when they come home...
Fear is the key. Something awful is going to happen. Don't know where. Don't know when.
150 Australians ... radicalised local Muslims, opting for jihad over suburban comfort, or, most disturbingly, both.
But if we have that head count, if we know their names, ought that not be enough for the vastly funded apparatus of state security to constrain them on their return? Should it not be beyond the means of ASIO, AFP, ONA, ASD, DIO, DSA, ACC, ASIS and all the rest to monitor, interdict and apprehend as necessary? Or is it truly the case that only the complete sacrifice of each and every one of our electronic identities, the subversion of judicial principals and the ascendency of our spooks can save us?
For make no mistake, the Government argues:
The threat to Australia and Australians from extremists is real and growing. Australian citizens and dual nationals are currently fighting overseas in Iraq, Syria and other conflicts, committing unspeakable atrocities and honing terrorist skills.
Many violent jihadists will attempt to return home.
To combat terrorism at home, and to prevent Australians committing terrorist acts abroad, our counter-terrorism agencies must be properly resourced and have legislative powers to respond to technological change and evolving threats.
Last week that campaign got off to a rocky start, the embarrassing failures over detail a clue: that the true objective of all the national security fuss might not be the advertised national security detail but rather, the hasty cobbling of an impression of stern, reassuring activity.
It might not be about data retention after all, it might just be about politics: Operation Look A Jihadist!
This week the campaign clicked into overdrive, headed by the Weekend Australian's declaration that "We'll fight Islam 100 years", a headline that was a call to arms against an entire world of belief.
That's an important distinction for the proponents of anxiety. The threat of a handful of extremists drawn to the Middle East by either blood lust, madness, religious conviction or simple youthful adventurism is a manageable threat compared to the lurking menace of an entire religion that claims half a million local adherents.
Therefore, we will fight Islam.
The Australian is not alone of course. Opinion formers like Andrew Bolt are in no doubt that the violence we fear is endemic to the religion that sometimes gives it cover.
Take this: "Just one week in the world of Islam. What is wrong with this faith?", or this: "Don't mention the Koran", or this: "The face of Islam at its worst".
And then on Monday came the clincher, the front page photo from The Australian, an image plucked it seems from the Twitter feed of home-grown and probably certifiable jihadist Khaled Sharrouf: a grinning boy and a severed head.
It's offered as proof of the incarnate evil that we confront, an image that transports the observer through shock, to revulsion, and then quite probably to fear.
The Defence Minister David Johnston saw the picture and drew the inevitable political conclusion: "I'm obviously revolted by that and it underscores the importance of the counter-terrorism laws we are seeking to enact." Operation We'll Protect You.
If we were relying on our finer cultural attributes in this moment, our reason, our tolerance, our humour, then a description of the image and the circumstance that produced it would be enough to drive a thoughtful response.
Publishing the image in a way that could not be avoided - above the fold on the front page of a national daily - leaves that paper aiding the original intent of the people who took it: to shock, to engender fear. In publishing, the newspaper became complicit in that campaign of terror.
To use that same fear to push a domestic agenda for increased national security protections that compromise cherished individual liberties is one thing. To promote anxiety to lever the improved popularity that comes from soothing paternalism seems not that far removed from the original tactic of the likes of the Islamic State: using fear to overwhelm your enemies and cement the loyalty of your friends.
As the Australian's Paul Kelly writes:
The cycle of events means Tony Abbott is now vesting a huge amount of time, energy and cabinet deliberations in his prime ministerial role as national security guardian, a task that fuses his moral fervour with political gain.
Abbott now presents as a leader for a more dangerous world.
More than a Prime Minister, a guardian against our fears, fears promoted by a sympathetic press.
We could do better. Trading in the politics of fear leaves us only one or two points separated from the people who would use that same tactic against us. Our supposed enemies wish us to be fearful. So do the people hoping to gain from offering us their defence.
Jonathan Green hosts Sunday Extra on Radio National and is the former editor of The Drum. View his full profile here.
Manipulation and the politics of fear - The Drum (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
